Re: M-TH: Putative about Putin
Chris wrote: I think it is more an attempt to forge a special relationship with Blair in which they are using each other. Putin is a creature created by the oligarch media owners in Russia. He has been well advised by media specialists about how to manage his image. They have clearly liaised closely with Alistair Campbell, Blair's expert spin doctor, in orchestrating the visit by Tony and Cheryl last month to meet the Putin's at a special performance of "War and Peace". Blair has always sought to use personal charm and dynamism to help Britain punch above its weight. He now seeks to present himself as an intermediary between Putin and Clinton, especially on the strategic arms limitation negotiations, Surely this is to reduce political analysis to clever tricks with smoke and mirrors. That it is all a matter of individual personalities and internal propaganda advantage. This might be interesting comment for the bourgeois press (and their largely proletarian and middle class readership) but surely Marxists should aim for a little more indepth analysis of the real underlying factors for a possible (historic) alliance between Russia and Britain, beyond the photo-oportunities with smart suits and fashionable wives. In my view the real important factor appear in your later brief paragraph: The press release also refers to financial talks between Britain and Russia, designed of course for Britain to get some tactical advantage relative to German and French capitalism in Russia. We'll wait and see which is the more important... Regards, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: this is progressive/ China
Rob, Here's what someone else said on China today. Charles Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/18/00 11:34AM Sigh, we're back to disagreeing again, Charles ... Only a very tiny, tiny group of people criticize China as being an aggressively capitalizing nation. This is an sectarian and not widely held idea about China. Only a few, I mean tiny number of Americans think this. The vast majority of people in the U.S. have been thoroughly convinced that China is a Communist nation. It was a pleasure to read Mao*s tribute to Dr. Bethune and some of the recent positive comments about the Chinese revolution on this list, particularly at a time when China-on-the-capitalist-road is coming under fire from the some of the same anti-communist forces which excoriated China-on-the-revolutionary-road. Despite its obvious shortcomings, I still happen to view China as a socialist country, though just hanging on, and retain the perspective that it remains possible for China to once again reverse direction to the left*only this time on the basis of a considerably more advanced economy and a much larger proportion of the population in the working class. The current AFL-CIO campaign against normal trade relations and WTO membership for China resembles the old Yellow Peril racism, modern nationalism and reactionary anti-communism wrapped into a new opportunist political package. Unfortunately, this campaign is gaining adherents in the developing new movement in the U.S. in opposition to the IMF, World Bank and WTO and can retard its progressive political development. While revolutionary Marxists must help to build this new movement, they must likewise strongly oppose the trend to deny China entry into the WTO and defend China against imperialist schemes in general because it remains a workers state. As Mao argued, it is reprehensible to "hear incorrect views without rebutting them..., but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened." In a related regard, the February 2000 Monthly Review contains an article worth reading, titled, *The Necessity of Gangster Capitalism: Primitive Accumulation in Russia and China,* by Nancy Holmstrom and Richard Smith. It*s on the web at http://www.monthlyreview.org/200holm.htm. The article goes into the differences between Russia and China in their movement toward capitalism and their respective methods of primitive accumulation. They write: *The emergence of gangster capitalism and wholesale corruption in the former Soviet bloc and China should have been entirely predictable to anyone familiar with the historical origins of capitalism...and to anyone with a passing familiarity with Marx*s account of primitive accumulation.* The authors suggest that Yeltsin*s U.S. advisers blundered in their guidance, resulting in the de-modernization of that once advanced society, but I suspect that was Washington*s intention all along. It no more wanted a capitalist rival with Russia*s potential than it did a communist rival of the USSR*s potential. In general, their analysis of why the Russian economy crumbled is quite good. The article declares that *China*s increasingly restless and combative labor force has yet to find its voice, but when it does, this could throw a large wrench into the World Bank-comprador bureaucrat plans for a transition to capitalism.* We may have seen a vision of the future in the recent three-day street battle to protest the closing of an *unprofitable* mine in Liaoning. Clearly, WTO membership (as much of the U.S. ruling class understands) will undoubtedly accelerate Beijing*s passage down the capitalist road, causing still further hardship for the masses. I oppose the theory that *the worse it gets, the better it gets,* since this conveys the impression that the increasing misery of the working class can ever be positive*but one must recognize the possibility that further movement toward capitalism may finally result in a serious radical turn from below that will strongly impact on the CCP*s left wing and lead to one more great reversal in the direction of the Chinese revolution. (end) --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Putative about Putin
At 09:04 18/04/00 +, you wrote: Chris wrote: I think it is more an attempt to forge a special relationship with Blair in which they are using each other. Putin is a creature created by the oligarch media owners in Russia. He has been well advised by media specialists about how to manage his image. They have clearly liaised closely with Alistair Campbell, Blair's expert spin doctor, in orchestrating the visit by Tony and Cheryl last month to meet the Putin's at a special performance of "War and Peace". Blair has always sought to use personal charm and dynamism to help Britain punch above its weight. He now seeks to present himself as an intermediary between Putin and Clinton, especially on the strategic arms limitation negotiations, Surely this is to reduce political analysis to clever tricks with smoke and mirrors. That it is all a matter of individual personalities and internal propaganda advantage. This might be interesting comment for the bourgeois press (and their largely proletarian and middle class readership) but surely Marxists should aim for a little more indepth analysis of the real underlying factors for a possible (historic) alliance between Russia and Britain, beyond the photo-oportunities with smart suits and fashionable wives. In my view the real important factor appear in your later brief paragraph: The press release also refers to financial talks between Britain and Russia, designed of course for Britain to get some tactical advantage relative to German and French capitalism in Russia. We'll wait and see which is the more important... Regards, John The economic base, yes, is ultimately the determining factor. The economic basis of solidarity between Blair and Putin is capitalist profit. But what I describe is more than smoke and mirrors. It is inherent in the contradiction of state power that the executive committee of the bourgeoisie has simultaneously both... 1) to appear to stand above classes impartially. 2) to ultimately rule in the interests of the dominant class. Sophisticated management of modern media is what Blair and Putin have in common. Their economic base is also ultimately the same: not small capital, not even middle sized capital, not industrial capital, and not speculative capital. It is finance capital at its weightiest and most rational. They have a natural alliance beyond the closeness of their age. Note also how Putin is a charmer and a dealer: He has just signed an agreement with Kuchma of the Ukraine (shortly after Kuchma makes his bid for greatly enhanced powers) to cooperate in arms manufacture and in nuclear reactors. Putin has also done a pluralist deal with the Russian communists. That party has just had its nominee confirmed as speaker of the Duma. Putin appeals to the nostalgia for the strenght of the old regime. He is forging alliances that could open the door for the reconstitution of the USSR (in the service of finance capital). More than smoke and mirrors. Damn clever footwork in the service of the powers that be, finance capital. Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
